Discrimination

[Stormahead]

What if it’s an emergency?

that really does not matter

 

[wanderingone]

has an absolute right to do so. If such bothers you, YOU are free to handle the finances out of YOUR resources to arrange an alternative

Private practice doctors do have the right to discriminate, however since surgeons have to have privileges at the hospitals where they perform their surgery they could easily be censured for refusing to treat, and the chances of him actually being in private practice, or private practice only as a heart surgeon are pretty minimal.

 

[Penumbra]

Is it immoral to discriminate against people who discriminate?

To discriminate is not immoral in all, or even most circumstances. To discriminate, in it's pure form, means to observe a difference. This is vital to virtually every function we do. When we discriminate with regards to other people, it can be tricky, but we do it every day and have to.

Let's say you work at a company and want to hire a new scientist. You have two applicants. One is a high school dropout, comes to the interview poorly dressed, demonstrates during the interview that he knows next to nothing about the subject necessary for the position he's being interviewed for, and in all aspects is just a bad candidate. The other has a PhD in the appropriate scientific field, comes to the interview prepared, and generally seems like an excellent candidate. Obviously you're going to discriminate between the two by observing a set of differences and then taking an appropriate course of action.

As some others have pointed out, sexual attraction is discrimination. When a person looks for a potential mate, it makes sense that they discriminate based on certain things, because not to do so equates with walking into a crowded space and proposing to the first person you see.

If you're in a war, and you shoot only at the enemy soldiers and not at soldiers on your own side, you are discriminating between soldiers.

'Bad' discrimination is when you observe a difference and then take an illogical or hurtful course of action. Not hiring a well-qualified person for a position on the basis that this person is black or female is an example of this.

So, the answer I have to your question is that it depends on the circumstances. I think refusing to let a racist person shop at your store is illogical, unless this person is going into your store and insulting other customers because of their race. But if someone is openly racist, I probably wouldn't hire them for a position because they will do more harm than good, and so they are not appropriate for the position.

Lets say; people who consider women highly inferior to men, as for example the Quran clearly states.

Where does the Qur'an state this?

In other words: Is everyone equal, even the people who don't consider everyone equal?

Depends on what yardstick you use to judge equality. What yardstick do you use to measure an individual's worth?

-Lyn

 

[NotreDame]

However, it's the fact that he refuses to operate at all that's immoral. Discriminating against potential patients is not immoral in and of itself, but rather, it's the fact that he refuses to treat them at all, whatever his reasons may be, that's immoral.

Why? You completely ignore the other alternative: if we find all discrimination to not be bad, then individual preferences aren't engaging in bad discrimination, and so all heterosexuals won't be condemned.

No, I am not ignoring the alternative, but rather you are ignoring the alternative. For you, it is an all or nothing scenario, but for me I see "alternatives." I do not see all discrimination the same, such that if one instance of discrimination is "bad" then all of it is bad, and similarly if one instance of discrimination is good, then all of it is good. We can take it on a case by case basis and determine if discrimination is bad or good, as opposed to your all or nothing approach.

I can say some individual preferences are not bad while simultaneously assert some are bad.

I disagree. Reasoning and evidence supports the opinion and helps sway people to it, but it doesn't make it any more or less valid. Validity is an either/or thing (much like the morality of discrimination ): either it's valid, or its invalid.

Well, I think you misunderstood the point I was making with the phrase "how much validity" so I now clarify what I was talking about. I understand the word validity here to mean or reference "truth," and at this time the only way we have to measure how much validity some proposition or claim has is predicated upon the evidence and strength of reasoning in support of the claim.

So, according to you, discrimination that prevents harm is allowable, while discrimination that doesn't prevent harm is immoral?

I am saying it is but one consideration to consider, but may not be determinative in all cases and situations. I never expressed an opinion as to any situation where harm is not present. However, I consider any claim which states discrimination where there is no harm, palpable or otherwise, is immoral is also an incorrect claim.

No, it doesn't: neither the hand-shaker nor the heart surgeon are immoral for discriminating. Refusing to operate is what's immoral, not the fact that the surgeon discriminates.

The heart surgeons actions, in the context I described, is immoral and wrong. Furthermore, your argument above suffers from a flaw, as it fails to consider the fact the refusal to operate is predicated upon the decision to discriminate on some basis. In other words, the decision not to operate in my scenario IS the act of discrimination, the act of discriminating.

My point about the heart surgeon was that it is not immoral for him to discriminate. He can discriminate till his heart's content.
However, it's the fact that he refuses to operate at all that's immoral.

His decision not to operate IS the discrimination! His refusal to operate is the discriminatory act.

Discriminating against potential patients is not immoral in and of itself, but rather, it's the fact that he refuses to treat them at all, whatever his reasons may be, that's immoral.

In my factual scenario, discriminating against potential patients is immoral and the fact he refused to treat them at all is also discrimination. You are making distinctions without any difference here.

 

[NotreDame]

has an absolute right to do so. If such bothers you, YOU are free to handle the finances out of YOUR resources to arrange an alternative

There can be no exercise of an absolute right when exercising such a right places or increases the risk of harm of another.

 

[NotreDame]

that really does not matter

Actually, it does matter. If the only doctor in town is white, and is also a racist, he cannot and should not be permitted to discriminate in such a manner to place other people at life or limb. It is tantamount to the only available source for food is a market owned by a racist, and he effectively denies entry to all minorities, thereby potentially starving them to death. It is unjust.

 

[b&wpac4]

has an absolute right to do so. If such bothers you, YOU are free to handle the finances out of YOUR resources to arrange an alternative

Then is it an absolute right of the board that certifies him to revoke his license if his actions constitute a violation of the ethics he agreed to when accepting said license?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, I am not ignoring the alternative, but rather you are ignoring the alternative. For you, it is an all or nothing scenario, but for me I see "alternatives." I do not see all discrimination the same, such that if one instance of discrimination is "bad" then all of it is bad, and similarly if one instance of discrimination is good, then all of it is good. We can take it on a case by case basis and determine if discrimination is bad or good, as opposed to your all or nothing approach.

Perhaps, but I stand by my contention. If you can show me two instances of discrimination that we both agree that one is 'good', and the other is 'bad', then I'll concede defeat.

Well, I think you misunderstood the point I was making with the phrase "how much validity" so I now clarify what I was talking about. I understand the word validity here to mean or reference "truth," and at this time the only way we have to measure how much validity some proposition or claim has is predicated upon the evidence and strength of reasoning in support of the claim.

Then we are indeed getting our vocabularies mixed up. To me, in this discussion, 'valid' refers to the fact that a wholly subjective opinion is as valid as any other (just as one's opinion of a piece of art is no more or less valid than someone else's).
I believe morality to be relative and subjective, so, to me, all moral codes and opinions are equally valid (no one is 'right').

I am saying it is but one consideration to consider, but may not be determinative in all cases and situations. I never expressed an opinion as to any situation where harm is not present. However, I consider any claim which states discrimination where there is no harm, palpable or otherwise, is immoral is also an incorrect claim.

So what factors determine whether discrimination is right or wrong?

The heart surgeons actions, in the context I described, is immoral and wrong.

By your moral code, perhaps, but not mine.

Furthermore, your argument above suffers from a flaw, as it fails to consider the fact the refusal to operate is predicated upon the decision to discriminate on some basis. In other words, the decision not to operate in my scenario IS the act of discrimination, the act of discriminating.

How so? Discrimination is splitting a group of people into various sub-groups, and preferring some over the others.

If the surgeon refuses to operate, period, that is immoral. He isn't discriminating against anyone: he's not operating on whites only, he's not operating on anyone. By definition, this isn't discrimination.

But it's still immoral.

So the immorality isn't the discrimination itself, but the fact that he refuses to operate on someone (and it just so happens that his reasons are discriminatory).

His decision not to operate IS the discrimination! His refusal to operate is the discriminatory act.

I disagree. It seems we are once again using different definitions for the same word.

 

[NotreDame]

Perhaps, but I stand by my contention. If you can show me two instances of discrimination that we both agree that one is 'good', and the other is 'bad', then I'll concede defeat.

I think I have already done this in a prior post. In fact, my examples prompted another member to concur in the absurdity of the results which follow from your reasoning. However, I will mention a few examples.

An individual refusing to shake hands with a Leper, or permit the Leper to reside in their home, is an example where the discrimination is not "bad."

A woman refusing to have sexual intimate relations with an individual with an STD, but having sex with an individual who does not have an STD, while still discrimination, but not worthy of being condemned as rephrensible or immoral.

A son or daughter who excludes their mother, father, and siblings from a list of potential sexual partners.

However, the discriminatory actions of the Nazi Third Reich towards some of its own citizens, and people, was and remains "bad." The discrimination of the early Roman Empire against people of particular religious faith was wrong.

So what factors determine whether discrimination is right or wrong?

Well, the potential harm has to be taken into consideration. It does not make any sense to condemn an individual whose discriminatory conduct was done on the basis of A.) to protect themselves, where they reasonably believed a palpable harm could manifest without such discrimnatory action. The man refusing to shake hands with a Leper, or the woman refusing to date or even have sexual intimate relations with a man with an STD would fall within this category.

In addition, I think if you are in a particular field of employment, where such employment is one of providing services necessary to sustain life, then where such discrimination will jeopardize the life or lives of people, then this discrimination is bad, wrong immoral. A utilites company should not deprive services, such as sterile or treated water, and electricity, on the basis of mere personal beliefs such as race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexual preference, gender, creed, etcetera. Just as the fire department or firefighters should not refuse to A) respond to a fire B.) combat the fire and C.) enter the home to save people when and where it is safe to do so, for any of the reasons I mentioned above.

How so? Discrimination is splitting a group of people into various sub-groups, and preferring some over the others.

This narrow meaning of discrimination is not the subject matter of this thread. You have referenced part of its correct meaning but not all of it, and certainly not the meaning which is the subject of Cantata's thread. The relevant meaning of discrimination is the separating of people into groups on the basis of some characteristic and then treating them differently on the basis of this characteristic(s). Webster's online dictionary defines the term as follows.

"1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently....3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>"

It is helpful to focus upon the meaning of the word "discriminate" since "discriminating" is the verb form of it used above. Again, from Webster's online dictionary, I refer to the meaning relevant to our dialogue, which is, "2: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality."

I say this meaning is relevant because Cantata is specifically using the meaning of discrimnate/discrimination/discriminating in a manner in which some people are treated differently than others on the basis of some characteristic. These definitions from Webster conform with Cantata's subject for this thread.

Now, relying upon these meanings, let's apply them to my hypothetical of the only heart surgeon for miles, who just so happens to also be white.

In the town of Racial Parity there is only one heart surgeon. The next heart surgeon is 100 miles away. The heart surgeon in the town of Racial Purity is white, and his name is Mr. Wasp. Mr. Wasp does not like minorities, in fact he is a member of the local KKK. Mr. Wasp refuses to see any minority patients for any reason. Mr. Wasp also refuses to perform any emergency open heart surgery on any minorities, but he does not deny this service to any white person. So. Mr. Wasp, consistent with his views, has only treated and continues to only treat white people.

So, when Mr. MLK, who lives in the town of Racial Parity, suffers a massive heart attack and needs immediate medical attention and surgery to survive, Mr. Wasp refuses to treat him at all, and consequently turns away Mr. MLK, the ambulance and EMT staff from his office or the hospital in which he is employed, but treats the elderly white lady 12 hours later, who also suffered a heart attack.

In this instance, the doctor has discriminated. The doctor has separated the people into groups of non-white (minorities) and white. The doctor then refuses extend his medical expertise to any non-white person, but all white people are welcome. The doctor does treat white people, has treated white people, and continues to treat white people but has and continues to deny service to the non-whites who come to him for assistance.

This conduct constitutes and satisifies the meaning of discrimination/discriminate. Hence, the doctor has and is discriminating in my scenario.

If the surgeon refuses to operate, period, that is immoral. He isn't discriminating against anyone: he's not operating on whites only, he's not operating on anyone. By definition, this isn't discrimination.

Then you have ignored the essential element of my hypothetical. It makes sense to address the hypothetical I actually used, as opposed to ignoring it and making one up yourself and attributing it to me as if I used it. My hypothetical, from the beginning, has stated, unequivocally I might add, the surgeon refuses service to anyone who is non-white. I'd think it was rather clear, without much doubt, ambiguity, or vagueness, the surgeon is still operating only on whites.

I disagree. It seems we are once again using different definitions for the same word.

No, this is an instance of you ignoring the hypothetical I originally used, and continue to use, and in its place you conjure up a hypothetical for me, attribute it to me as making it, and then attack it. Nice strawman.